IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

2 Civil 2 Civil B194120 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT (DIVISION 4) 4) HUB HUB CITY SOLID WASTE SERVICES, INC., INC., a California a California corporation; and MICHAEL ALOYAN Petitioners, vs. vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Respondent, CITY OF OF COMPTON, Real Real Party Party in Interest in Interest Los Los Angeles Angeles Superior Court Case Case No. No. BC BC 323801 Hon. Hon. Joanne Joanne O Donnell, Judge of of the the Superior Court REAL PARTY IN INTEREST S PRELIMINARY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST S PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION TO TO PETITION FOR WRIT FOROFWRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION OR OTHER OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF [EXHIBIT] GOODSTEIN && BERMAN LLP Gary Gary J. J. Goodstein (166240) 555 555 W. W. 5 th Street, 5th Street, 30th 30th Floor Los Los Angeles, Floor Angeles, California 90013 90013 Telephone: (213) (213) 683-1908 Attorneys for for Real Real Party in in Interest CITY CITY OF OF COMPTON

2 Civil 2 Civil B194120 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT (DIVISION 4) 4) HUB HUB CITY SOLID WASTE SERVICES, INC., INC., a California a California corporation; and MICHAEL ALOYAN Petitioners, vs. vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Respondent, CITY OF OF COMPTON, Real Real Party Party in Interest in Interest Los Los Angeles Angeles Superior Court Case Case No. No. BC BC 323801 Hon. Hon. Joanne Joanne O Donnell, Judge of of the the Superior Court REAL PARTY IN INTEREST S PRELIMINARY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST S PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION TO TO PETITION FOR WRIT FOR OFWRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION OR OTHER OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 1. 1. INTRODUCTION Petitioners Hub Hub City City Solid Solid Waste Waste Services, Services, Inc. s Inc. s and and Michael Michael Aloyan s (collectively, Petitioners ) petition for for writ of of mandate must be be denied denied because because it was it was filed filed more more than than ten ten (10) (10) after after notice notice to the to the parties parties of of the the decision decision striking striking Petitioners Statement of of Disqualification. As As such, such, it it is is untimely pursuant pursuant to to California Code Code of Civil of Civil Procedure Section Section 1 1

170.3(d), 1 and 1 and this this Court Court therefore therefore lacks lacks jurisdiction to to consider the the issues issues set set forth forth in the in the Petition. Petition. As As a separate a separate and and sufficient sufficient ground ground for denial for denial of of Petitioners writ writ petition, petition, on its face its face the the petition petition demonstrates that that the the trial trial court s court s order order striking striking Petitioners Statement of of Disqualification was was in all in all respects respects proper. proper. Accordingly, Petitioners are are not not entitled entitled to any to any relief relief even even if the if the writ writ petition is is considered on the the merits. merits. 2. 2. LEGAL DISCUSSION A. A. THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE THE WRIT WRIT BECAUSE IT IT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED Petitioners filed filed their their Statement of of Disqualification on September 11, 11, 2006. 2006. [Writ [Writ Petition, Ex. Ex. D. ] On September 18, 18, 2006, the the trial court issued issued its Order its Order Striking Striking Statement Statement of of Disqualification. [Writ [Writ Petition, Ex. Ex. E. ] E. ] That That same same day, day, the the clerk clerk mailed mailed a copy a copy of of the the Order Order to the to the parties. parties. (A (A true true and and correct correct copy copy of the of the clerk s clerk s Certificate of of Mailing of of Copy of of Court s Court s Order Order Striking Statement of of Disqualification is attached hereto hereto as as Exhibit 1.) 1.) The The clerk s clerk s Certificate of of Mailing evidences that that notice notice to the to the parties parties of the of the decision, was was given given on on September 18, 2006. 18, 2006. This This notice notice triggered triggered the the 10 day 10 day time time limit limit to seek to seek writ writ review review of the of the trial trial court s court s order order striking striking Petitioners Statement of of Disqualification. Code Code of of Civil Civil Procedure 170.3(d). As As notice notice to to the the parties parties was was given given on on September 18, 18, 2006, 2006, any any writ writ petition petition challenging that that order order had had to have to have been been filed filed no no later later than than September 28, 28, 2006. 2006. Petitioners did did not not file file the the instant instant writ writ petition petition until until October October 3, 2006; 3, 2006; it is it thus is thus untimely. 2 untimely.2 1 All 1 All statutory references are are to the to the California Code Code of Civil of Civil Procedure, unless unless otherwise stated. stated. 2 This 2 This likely likely explains Petitioners failure failure to to include the the clerk s clerk s Certificate of of Mailing as as an an exhibit exhibit to the to the writ writ petition, and and failure failure to to state state in the in the petition petition the the date date on which on which notice notice to the to the parties parties of the of the decision was was given. given. Had Had they they done done so, so, it would it would have have immediately revealed as false as false Petitioners representation that that [t]his [t]his petition petition has has been been filed filed within within ten ten days days of the of the notice notice to the to the parties parties of the of the decision decision by by Respondent court court striking striking Petitioners statement statement of of disqualification. Petition, 5:10. 5:10. 2 2

Because Because Petitioners petition petition was was untimely untimely filed, filed, this this Court Court is is without without jurisdiction to to consider it on it on the the merits. merits. See See People People v. Sup. v. Sup. Ct. Ct. (1992) (1992) 2 Cal. 2 Cal. App. App. 4 th 4th 675, 675, 683 683 [ Where [ Where a statute a statute sets sets forth forth a specific a specific time time limit limit within within which a writ a writ petition must be be filed, the the failure to to file file a a petition within within that that time time has has been been held held to be to be jurisdictional. ]; See See also, also, Bensimon v. v. Sup. Sup. Ct. Ct. (2003) (2003) 113 113 Cal. Cal. App. App. 4 th 1257, 4th 1257, 1259; 1259; Eldridge Eldridge v. Sup. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) Ct. (1989) 208 208 Cal. Cal. App. App. 3d 1350, 3d 1350, 1355. 1355. Indeed, Indeed, failure failure to seek to seek a writ a writ within within the the time time provided provided by by statute statute constitutes a waiver a waiver of the of the right right to seek to seek relief relief from from the the trial trial court s court s allegedly erroneous refusal refusal to to disqualify itself. itself. Guedalia v. v. Sup. Sup. Ct. Ct. (1989) (1989) 211 211 Cal. Cal. App. App. 3d 1156, 3d 1156, 1165. 1165. In that In that case, case, the the court court of of appeal appeal found found petitioners writ writ petition petition untimely where where the the petition petition was was not not filed filed within within 10 10 days days after after the the trial trial court court announced in open in open court court that that the the petitioners peremptory challenge was was denied. denied. The The court court found found that that no no written written notice notice of any of any sort sort was was necessary necessary to trigger to trigger the 10 the day 10 day time time limit limit to to petition petition for for writ writ of of mandate pursuant to Section to Section 170.3(d). 170.3(d). Id. Id. at 1163. at 1163. Section Section 1013 1013 does does not not save save Petitioners petition petition from from being being deemed deemed untimely, because because the the rules rules regarding regarding time time extensions for for notice notice served served by by mail mail applies applies only only in in the the absence absence of a of specific a specific exception exception provided provided for for by by this this section section or other or other statute statute or rule or rule of court. of court. Code Code of Civil of Civil Procedure 1013(a). 1013(a). Here, Here, Section Section 170.3(d) 170.3(d) specifically excepts excepts writ writ petitions from from the the scope scope of matters of matters to which to which the the 5-extra-days-for-notice-served-by-mail rule rule applies, applies, because because it provides it provides that that the the exclusive means means to seek to seek review review of an of an order order striking striking a Statement a Statement of of Disqualification by is by a petition a petition for for writ writ sought sought within within 10 10 days days of notice of notice to the to the parties parties of the of the decision. Code Code of of Civil Civil Procedure 170.3(d). This This language has has been been interpreted not not to to require require formal formal written written notice notice in order in order to trigger to trigger the the 10 10 day day limit limit for for filing a a writ writ petition, and and therefore Section Section 1013(a) 1013(a) does does not not apply apply to extend to extend Petitioners time time to contest to contest the the denial denial of its of effort its effort to to disqualify the the trial trial judge. judge. See See Guedalia v. Sup. v. Sup. Ct. Ct. (1989) (1989) 211 211 Cal. Cal. App. App. 3d 3d 1156, 1156, 1163-1165; Citicorp North North America, Inc. Inc. v. Sup. v. Sup. Ct. Ct. (1989) (1989) 213 213 Cal. Cal. App. App. 3d 3d 563, 563, 567-567- 568 568 [ 1013 [ 1013 extension applies applies only only where where prescribed time time period period triggered triggered by by service. ] 3 3

B. B. THE PETITION FOR WRIT SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ORDERED THE THE STATEMENT OF OF DISQUALIFICATION STRICKEN Code Code of Civil of Civil Procedure Section Section 170.4(b) 170.4(b) provides: Notwithstanding paragraph (5) of (5) of subdivision (c) (c) of Section of Section 170.3, 170.3, if a if a statement of of disqualification is untimely filed filed or or if on if on its its face face it discloses it discloses no legal no legal grounds grounds for for disqualification, the the trial trial judge judge against against whom whom it it was was filed filed may may order order it stricken. it stricken. Petitioners Statement of of Decision was was filed filed September 11, 11, 2006, 2006, and and on its on face its face discloses discloses no legal no legal grounds grounds for for disqualification. Accordingly, the the trial trial court court properly ordered it it stricken and and retained retained jurisdiction for for the the remaining phase phase of trial of trial of the of the above-entitled action, action, which which is set is set to to commence on October on October 18, 18, 2006. 2006. 1. 1. The The Only Only Grounds Grounds Petitioners State State for for Disqualification are are Adverse Adverse Rulings Rulings Section Section 170.2 170.2 states, states, It shall It shall not not be grounds be grounds for for disqualification that that the the judge: (b) Has Has in any in any capacity expressed a view a view on a on legal a legal or factual or factual issue issue presented presented in the in the proceeding... All All of of the the grounds asserted asserted by by Petitioners to to demonstrate purported purported judicial judicial bias bias relate relate to the to the trial trial court s court s expression of its of views its views on on legal legal or factual or factual issues issues in the in the proceeding. Accordingly, as as a matter a matter of law of law they they are are insufficient to to evidence bias bias or or lack lack of of impartiality justifying disqualification of of the the trial judge. The The nine nine so-called so-called grounds Petitioners itemize itemize in their in their Statement of of Disqualification all all relate relate to to the the trial trial court s rulings and/or and/or expressions of view of view on on legal legal and and factual factual issues issues presented presented in the in action. the action. Specifically, the the focus focus of Petitioners of Petitioners complaints complaints can can be summarized be summarized as follows: as 3 follows:3 3 Real 3 Real Party Party in Interest in Interest disputes disputes the the accuracy accuracy of each of each of of Petitioners allegations of alleged of alleged error error or wrong-doing by the by the trial trial judge. judge. However, it it is is unnecessary here here to refute to refute Petitioners misrepresentations and and 4 4

1. 1. The The trial trial court s court s exercise exercise of its of its discretion to decline to decline to rule to rule on Petitioners oral oral Motion Motion for for Judgment at the at the close close of of Real Real Party s Party s evidence evidence on alter on alter ego ego liability liability in phase in phase 1 of 1 of trial; trial; 2. 2. The The trial trial court s court s denial denial of of Petitioners motion motion for for discovery sanctions; 3. 3. The The trial trial court s court s (true) (true) representation that that it it executed a a Statement Statement of Decision of Decision regarding regarding alter alter ego ego liability liability on July on July 21, 21, 2006; 2006; 4. 4. The The court s court s ruling ruling (or (or alleged) alleged) failure failure to rule to rule on on a motion a motion in limine; in limine; 5. 5. The The trial trial court s court s alleged alleged statement in a in related a related action action about about the the fact fact that that Aloyan s alter alter ego ego liability liability had had been been adjudicated in the in the instant instant action; action; 6. 6. The The trial trial court s court s alleged alleged statement regarding the the legal legal effect effect of the of the adjudication of of Aloyan s alter alter ego ego liability in in phase phase 1 of 1 trial; of trial; 7. 7. The The trial trial court s court s ruling ruling on on Compton s reconsidered Motion Motion for for Summary Adjudication; 8. 8. The The trial trial court s court s denial denial of of Petitioners ex ex parte parte application for for a trial a trial continuance; and and 9. 9. The The trial trial court s court s refusal refusal to respond to respond to to Petitioners counsel s uninformed interrogation regarding the the court s court s ruling ruling an in an unrelated action. action. In short, In short, Petitioners claim claim of bias of bias is premised on on nothing nothing more more than than their their dissatisfaction with with the the court s court s adverse adverse determinations on a number a number of of legal, legal, factual factual and and evidentiary issues, issues, some some of which of which relate relate back back nearly nearly five five months. months. Recently, the the California Supreme Court Court once once again again rejected rejected this this as as a basis a basis for for disqualifying a trial a trial judge. judge. In In People People v. v. Guerra (2006) (2006) 37 37 Cal. Cal. mischaracterizations of the of the proceedings and and rulings rulings of which of which they they now now complain. Even Even if if Petitioners complaints were were true, true, none none demonstrate judicial judicial bias bias sufficient to justify to justify disqualification of of the the trial trial judge here. here. If If the the Court Court is is considering issuing issuing an an alternative writ writ notwithstanding the the limited limited matters matters discussed in this in this Preliminary Response, Real Real Party Party requests requests an an opportunity to submit to submit additional opposition briefing briefing responding to the to the merits merits of of Petitioners writ writ petition. 5 5

4th 4th 1067, 1067, 1111-1112, the the Court Court reconfirmed the the long-standing principle principle that that a a trial trial court's numerous rulings against a party--even when erroneous--do not not establish a a charge of of judicial bias, especially when they they are are subject to to review. (citing Andrews v. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. Bd. (1981) (1981) 28 Cal. 28 Cal. 3d 781, 3d 781, 795-796; 795-796; McEwen McEwen v. v. Occidental Life Life Ins. Ins. Co. Co. (1916) (1916) 172 172 Cal. Cal. 6, 11.) 6, 11.) (Emphasis added.) added.) Here, Here, each each of the of the Court s Court s rulings rulings of which of which Petitioners complain are are reviewable on on appeal, appeal, and and Petitioners complain complain of nothing of nothing other other than than reviewable rulings rulings of the of the trial trial judge. judge. None None of the of the alleged alleged grounds for for disqualification asserted asserted by by Petitioners supports supports the conclusion the conclusion that that their their Constitutional rights rights will will or or are are likely likely to be to be violated violated if the if the trial trial judge judge does does not not disqualify herself. herself. To To the the contrary, contrary, Section Section 170.2(b) 170.2(b) specifically precludes Petitioners from from relying relying on any on any of their of their complaints about about the the trial trial court s court s prior prior rulings rulings as as a basis a basis for for disqualification. As As such, such, the the Court Court properly struck struck Petitioners Statement of of Disqualification pursuant to Section to Section 170.4(b). 2. 2. The The Court s Court s Adverse Adverse Assessment of of Credibility of a of a Party Party or Attorney Attorney Does Does Not Not Justify Justify Disqualification of of the the Trial Trial Judge Judge To To the the extent extent Petitioners distrust distrust of the of the Court s Court s impartiality is is premised premised on the on the Court s Court s assessment assessment of credibility of credibility of of Petitioners or their or their attorney attorney in the in the first first phase phase of trial, of trial, disqualification would would be be wholly wholly improper. [W]hen [W]hen the the state state of mind of mind of the of the trial trial judge judge appears appears to be to adverse be adverse to one to one of the of the parties parties but but is is based based upon upon actual actual observance of the of the witnesses and and the the evidence evidence given given during during the the trial trial of an of an action, action, it does it does not not amount amount to that to that prejudice against against a litigant a litigant which which disqualifies him him in the in the trial trial of the of the action. action. It is It his his duty duty to to consider and and pass pass upon upon the the evidence evidence produced produced before before him, him, and and when when the the evidence evidence is in is conflict, in conflict, to resolve to resolve that that conflict conflict in favor in favor of of the the party party whose whose evidence evidence outweighs that that of the of the opposing opposing party. party. 6 6

The The opinion opinion thus thus formed, formed, being being the the result result of a of a judicial judicial hearing, does does not not amount amount to that to that bias bias and and prejudice contemplated by section by section 170, 170, subdivision 5 of 5 the of the Code Code of Civil of Civil Procedure... (See (See also also People People v. Yeager, v. Yeager, 55 Cal. 55 Cal. 2d 374, 2d 374, 391 391 [10 [10 Cal. Cal. Rptr. Rptr. 829, 829, 359 359 P.2d P.2d 261].) 261].) People People v. Tappan v. Tappan (1968) (1968) 266 266 Cal. Cal. App. App. 2d 2d 812, 812, 816. 816. Indeed, Indeed, to permit to permit Petitioners to to disqualify the the trial trial judge judge simply simply because because the court the court made made adverse adverse rulings rulings would would sanction sanction impermissible gamesmanship. A A party party should should not not be be allowed to gamble to gamble on on a a favorable decision decision and and then then raise raise such such an objection an objection in the in the event event he is he disappointed in in the the result. result. Tappan, supra supra at 817 at 817 (quoting (quoting In re In re Cavanaugh (1965) (1965) 234 234 Cal. Cal. App. App. 2d 2d 316, 316, 321. 321. That That is exactly is exactly what what Petitioners are are attempting to to do here. do here. Having Having willingly submitted the the alter alter ego ego phase phase of trial of trial to Judge to Judge O Donnell, but but being being disappointed in the in the outcome, Petitioners now now seek seek to to disqualify the the trial trial judge judge by by accusing her her of bias. of bias. However, Petitioners evidence evidence of bias of bias is nothing is nothing more more than than their their contention that that the the trial trial court court incorrectly failed failed to rule to rule in his in his favor favor on on several several evidentiary, procedural and and substantive matters. matters. Nor Nor does does Petitioners baseless baseless apprehension of the of trial the trial court s court s attitude attitude toward toward Petitioners counsel s behavior behavior provide provide a ground a ground for for disqualification. As As observed recently in People in People v. v. Guerra, supra supra at 1111- at 1111-1112: 1112: Section Section 1044 1044 provides provides that that a trial a trial court court has has the the duty duty to control to control the the trial trial proceedings. (See (See also also People People v. v. Carpenter (1997) (1997) 15 Cal. 15 Cal. 4th 4th 312, 312, 397.) 397.) When When an an attorney engages engages in improper in improper behavior, such such as ignoring as ignoring the the court's court's instructions or asking or asking inappropriate questions, it it is within is within a trial a trial court's court's discretion to to reprimand the the attorney, attorney, even even harshly, harshly, as the as the circumstances require. require. (People (People v. Snow v. Snow (2003) (2003) 30 Cal. 30 Cal. 4th 4th 43, 43, 78.) 78.) Mere Mere expressions of opinion of opinion by a by trial a trial judge judge based based on actual on actual observation of the of the witnesses witnesses and and evidence evidence in the in the courtroom do not do not 7 7

demonstrate a bias. a bias. (Moulton (Moulton Niguel Niguel Water Water Dist. Dist. v. v. Colombo (2003) (2003) 111 111 Cal. Cal. App. App. 4th 4th 1210, 1210, 1219-1220; see see also also People People v. Farnam v. Farnam (2002) (2002)28 28 Cal. Cal. 4th 4th 107, 107, 193-195.) 3. 3. CONCLUSION Petitioners petition petition for for writ writ of of mandate was was untimely filed. filed. Accordingly, this this Court Court lacks lacks jurisdiction to to consider the the petition on its its merits. merits. Further, it is it is manifest from from the the face face of of Petitioners petition that that no no valid valid ground ground for for disqualification exists, exists, and and that that the the trial trial court court properly issued issued an order an order striking striking Petitioners Statement Statement of of Disqualification. Dated: Dated: October October 5, 2006 5, 2006 Respectfully submitted, GOODSTEIN & & BERMAN LLP By: By: GARY GARY J. J. GOODSTEIN Attorneys Real Real Party Party in Interest in Interest City City of of Compton 8 8

VERIFICATION I, Gary I, Gary J. J. Goodstein, verify verify and and declare declare as follows: as follows: I am I am the the attorney attorney representing Real Real Party Party in Interest in Interest City City of Compton of Compton in in this this action. action. I have I have read read the the foregoing foregoing Preliminary Opposition to Petition to Petition for for Writ Writ of of Mandate, Mandate, Prohibition or Other or Other Appropriate Relief Relief and and the the attached attached exhibit exhibit hereto, hereto, and and know know the the contents contents thereof thereof to be to true be true of my of my own own personal personal knowledge. The The reason reason the foregoing the foregoing opposition is verified is verified by by me me and and not not Real Real Party Party is is that that the the facts facts contained herein herein are are within within my my personal knowledge based based upon upon my my personal personal involvement the in the action action in my in my capacity as legal as legal representative of Real of Real Party. Party. I declare I declare under under penalty penalty of perjury of perjury under under the the laws laws of the of the State State of of California that that the the foregoing is true is true and and correct correct and and that that this this verification was was executed on October on October 6, 2006, 2006, at Los at Los Angeles, Angeles, California. Gary Gary J. J. Goodstein 9 9

CERTIFICATE OF OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant Pursuant to to California Rule Rule of Court of Court 14(c)(1), the the undersigned, counsel counsel for for Real Real Party Party in Interest in Interest City City of of Compton, hereby hereby certifies certifies that that this this Preliminary Opposition to Petition to Petition for for Writ Writ of of Mandate is is 2,757 2,757 words words in in length, length, including footnotes. The The undersigned has has relied relied on on the the word word count count feature feature of the of the computer word word processing program used used to prepare to prepare this this document. Gary Gary J. J. Goodstein 10 10

TABLE OF OF CONTENTS TABLE OF OF AUTHORITIES... ii.. ii 1. 1. INTRODUCTION...1.1 2. 2. LEGAL DISCUSSION...2..2 A. A. THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE THE WRIT WRIT BECAUSE IT IT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED...2..2 B. B. THE PETITION FOR WRIT SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ORDERED THE THE STATEMENT OF OF DISQUALIFICATION STRICKEN...4..4 1. 1. The The Only Only Grounds Petitioners State State for for Disqualification are are Adverse Adverse Rulings Rulings...4..4 2. 2. The The Court s Court s Adverse Adverse Assessment of of Credibility of of a Party a Party or Attorney Attorney Does Does Not Not Justify Justify Disqualification of of the the Trial Trial Judge...6.6 3. 3. CONCLUSION...8..8 i i

TABLE OF OF AUTHORITIES CASES CASES Andrews Andrews v. v. Agricultural Labor Labor Relations Bd. Bd. (1981) (1981) 28 28 Cal. Cal. 3d 3d 781 781... 6 6 Bensimon Bensimon v. Sup. v. Sup. Ct. (2003) Ct. (2003) 113 113 Cal. Cal. App. App. 4 th 1257... 4th 3 3 1257... Citicorp North North America, Inc. Inc. v. Sup. v. Sup. Ct. Ct. (1989) (1989) 213 213 Cal. Cal. App. App. 3d 3d 563... 3 3 Eldridge v. Sup. v. Sup. Ct. Ct. (1989) (1989) 208 208 Cal. Cal. App. App. 3d 3d 1350 1350... 3 3 Guedalia v. Sup. v. Sup. Ct. Ct. (1989) (1989) 211 211 Cal. Cal. App. App. 3d 3d 1156... 3 3 In re In re Cavanaugh (1965) (1965) 234 234 Cal. Cal. App. App. 2d 2d 316... 7 7 McEwen McEwen v. v. Occidental Life Life Ins. Ins. Co. Co. (1916) (1916) 172 172 Cal. Cal. 6... 6 6 6 Moulton Moulton Niguel Niguel Water Water Dist. Dist. v. v. Colombo (2003) (2003) 111 111 Cal. Cal. App. App. 4 th 1210... 4th 8 8... People People v. Carpenter v. Carpenter (1997) (1997) 15 Cal. 15 Cal. 4 th 312 4th... 312 7 7... People People v. Farnam v. Farnam (2002) (2002) 28 Cal. 28 Cal. 4 th 107... 4th 8 8 107... People People v. Guerra v. Guerra (2006) (2006) 37 Cal. 37 Cal. 4 th 1067...5, 4th...5, 7 7 1067... People People v. Sup. v. Sup. Ct. (1992) Ct. (1992) 2 Cal. 2 Cal. App. App. 4 th 675... 4th 3... 3... People People v. Tappan v. Tappan (1968) (1968) 266 266 Cal. Cal. App. App. 2d 812... 2d 7... 7 People People v. Yeager, v. Yeager, 55 Cal. 55 Cal. 2d 374 2d 374... 7... 7 STATUTES California Code Code of Civil of Civil Procedure 170.2(b)...4, 6.4,6 California Code Code of Civil of Civil Procedure 170.3(d)...2,...2, 3, 43, 4 California Code Code of Civil of Civil Procedure 170.4(b)...4, 6.4, 6 California Code Code of Civil of Civil Procedure 1013 1013... 3... 3 California Code Code of Civil of Civil Procedure 1044 1044... 7... 7 ii ii